See? you're evading questions again. The burden of proof isn't on me. You're the one claiming something, you have to prove it, or at least provide a possible way of testing for it. Till then, your ideas are purely philosophical (also not a science).

I answered your question. You asked "Do you have proof?" and I said "Yes I do". Question answered.

You actually want me to prove it to you? You never asked me to do that, and I will not prove that to you here on this forum. If you wish to wake up you will have to do so of your own accord; I cannot wake you. If the stars want you the stars will take you.

You apparently do not have proof that your reality is real. You dodged my counter question completely. What you did is dodging questions, what I did is answering them.

I know, it's hard to follow things when you quote what you don't understand just to troll.

You're wavering off into some place strange because you split the topic by asking me about reality. That wasn't what Evert and I were talking about -- at least, not in the context you quoted. The part you quoted and questioned was this line:

I thought all of my answers were unrealistic -- that's the point. The reality that has been forced upon us is a fake! Much of our reality is constructed by dangerous memes.

I provided proof in the link. Whether you accept it as proof or not is your own choice, and whether you understand it depends on the entire process you went through which lead to you sitting in your chair in front of this screen watching what a crazy stranger is typing from half way across the country.

If you do understand it, I suggest watching the movie "Children of Man". Not the greatest movie, but is interesting under the context of that memes video.

Objective, shared reality is a fairly simple thing to prove ... a person's perception of reality is fairly easy to fake (speaking as a recently certified clinical hypnotherapist, which Derezo should know since he has me Facebook'ed) and I'd agree that we as human beings do not experience reality directly, only filtered through our subconscious. But that and a dollar fifty will get you a cup of coffee; reality is still real.

I am proposing that matter (stars, planets, and grains of sand) has an unseen, non-local, active property of consciousness. It is present in every atom, but I'm considering the macroscopic bodies like stars and planets. Under this idea our Sun would have the largest consciousness in our solar system, while the super-massive black hole we're spinning around has considerably more of the mysterious property. That's what I mean by "relative to matter".

Nothing in that implies what you just said. In fact, to me it blatantly states the exact opposite.

Microscopic bacteria can make very limited choices and observations and are entirely dependent on the environment - the most "primitive" form of consciousness. Humans are capable of making the most choices of anything else we've knowingly encountered, [...] Still dependent on their environment, but capable of changing it by their own will to suit their needs and goals, which are more diverse than those of bacteria.

Compared to the Earth, humans and bacteria are both insignificant. According to what you just said, the influence of either is insignificant compared to the overpowering influence of the Earth. To me, that's at odds with what you said before. How are they not?

I have been consistent in these things as they are the basis of the idea.

From where I'm standing you have not been consistent. You have been vague and been evading questions prompting you to be less vague. You have made statements and then later made statements that provide new information that change statements that you have made before, or to all appearance contradict them. And when asked about that, you reply that your statements do not contradict but you do not clarify why.

Quote:

The "scientific" explanation I've placed on this is a simple relationship which is unnecessary and can be scratched if you choose.

Ok, so hang on. Does it actually add anything or doesn't it? If it does, then why is it unnecessary? If it doesn't, then why do you bring it up in the first place? Isn't it simply misleading to draw an analogy in that case?

Quote:

You're questioning my explanation of it and the language used because you're going into it with a mindset that it is wrong even though you do not know what it is

Not at all. I'm just subjecting it to a skeptical scientific interrogation. I'm questioning your explanation because I want to see how you respond to having your explanation challenged. I make it a point of trying to get precise language and definitions because without that we're not talking about the same thing. See the earlier debacle on the meaning of "consciousness". That word means something very different to you than it does to me. If you don't say what it means to you and I read what you're saying with my meaning of "consciousness" in place of yours, then you talk gibberish. All I'm doing is playing Socrates.

Quote:

Your responses to the quotes you make are not typically related to the premise of this discussion.

Oh? What, according to you, is the premise of this discussion?For me, it is that you will not able to self-consistently clarify your explanation of the world, including your "consciousness", if subjected to critical questioning, asked to define concepts precisely, explain the links between different bits of information and to clarify or justify some of the broad and vague statements you make.So far you haven't failed to live up to that expectation.

Quote:

I did answer that

I've already said why that doesn't answer my original question. So how about those other things I asked about?

Quote:

The talk of agriculture was to note that not only are animals going extinct, but entire ecosystems are being destroyed and occupied by human created plants.

You did not make that point. You just made a random statement about organic food. If that was the point you wanted to make, you didn't state it. Probably because you have an association there that naturally takes you from one to the other so that to you it doesn't seem as though you've skipped a part of your reasoning. And maybe that's the major part of where the misunderstandings come from: you're just not explaining parts of your logic.Anyway, that's still human influence. We've been there.

Quote:

I understand your perspective, but I know of nothing in nature which agrees with that statement or offers a metaphor to aid it. Things are attracted to other things for reasons, and they evolve to be attracted to them for reasons. Take flowers as an example. Many flowers range in beauty and develop significant differences in order to attract bees to take their pollen so that they will procreate when the pollen is spread to other flowers. They evolve different colors and patterns, varying flavours and volumes of nectar, with the grand purpose of attracting the bees. There is reason in all things, and there are no exclusions. There is no denying that we were once attracted to the stars. I think this idea could be why, and that is all.

No, I don't think you do get the gist of what I meant. What inspires people about a starry night does not depend on what the nature of the stars is. Physics tells us stars are nuclear furnaces, tens, hundreds, thousands parsecs away or more. Whether you know this or not does not change the beauty of the night sky.Stars inspired people because of the way they move, the regular patterns that (seemingly) stay the same from year to year, century to century. There is a semblance of tranquility and eternity about the night sky that is in contrast to the turbulent and transient nature of life on Earth. None of that depends on what the stars actually are - for all intent and purpose, they could be what people once believed them to be: tiny dots of light attached to a sphere suspended high above the Earth.

Anyway, you're reading a lot into human curiosity to know what is "beyond the next hill".

Quote:

I'm trying to have a casual discussion. You are in interrogation mode because you are prejudice.

No, I'm not. I'm trying to proof a point, which is that it is pointless to try to argue with you against the things that you have convinced yourself are true, no matter how legitimate questions or points raised might be.I suppose I should apologise to you for putting you at the receiving end of all that; I have nothing against you and while I do think the things you state are sheer nonsense, you're free to believe it if you think it enhances your life as far as I'm concerned.

Quote:

If you didn't take every word with such a heavy heart it wouldn't be such a difficult conversation.

If you were clear about what you mean and actually answered questions instead of going "oh, you're just nitpicking and you don't want to believe me anyway" it'd be a whole lot easier too.If I don't take your word for the wild things you say and question you critically about them, then you should respond to those challenges and not evade them or say something vague like "you can't understand because you don't want to" because that's certainly not going to make me receptive to the things you say.

Quote:

I am not going to take the time to be ultra-specific and explain real world happenings in great detail

Ok, so you're not going to clarify any of the things I asked you to clarify because they're unclear?Well, I didn't really think you would. That just proofs the point I wanted to make though.

Quote:

when I'm speaking with someone who is moderately intelligent enough to cut away the obviously non-applicable states and focus on the core of the discussion.

Ooh, I love the insult. Say it again.

Quote:

I continually admit the language is difficult, and you agree, but you can't get over it and keep going back to it.

Yes, because I keep trying to get you to do something about the problem by defining concepts and being as clear as possible and you keep ignoring it and prefer to use vague and loose sentences that don't actually make your line of thought or reasoning clear.Yes, it's hard. But unless you try to solve the problem it's not going to go away.

Quote:

I can't teach you all of these things just to show the idea that life is made by star stuff and is therefore controlled by the stars due to attraction, and what that implies with our history.

I daresay I know more about stars and "star stuff" than you do.

Quote:

I'm not sure why you bothered, you have nothing to gain from this discussion

I told you why I bothered.And again, I probably ought to apologise to you for that.The questions are honest enough, I'm open to having an intellectual debate about things I don't believe in. But no, I never seriously thought you would answer them. Not believing that I wouldn't have bothered except to proof a point.

Quote:

There are entire books written about the purpose of life. I cannot summarize it in a paragraph for you,

But I never asked you about the meaning of life, and you don't have to summarise it for me.To me, it is up to each individual to find meaning in their lives - because there is nothing "out there" that will do it for them. To some, that means believing that there is. And that's fine.

Ok, but that's not what you said before:...Nothing in that implies what you just said. In fact, to me it blatantly states the exact opposite.

It is not the exact opposite. By saying it is a 'non-local property' I was trying to convey the meaning that it is in influence of other things and not only in influence of itself. I'm basically saying the sun isn't just giving us heat and making life sustainable, it is creating the life and controlling by giving it ever increasing levels of "consciousness" which evolves.

The Sun has the largest consciousness in our solar system, but the Sun doesn't only control the Sun with it. The Sun controls events down here on earth with it

Quote:

Ok, but why does that not hold for humans in your earlier comparison

Humans are the most intelligent, capable, influential creatures on this planet and (arguably) the most evolved, but they are still just creatures and do fall under this same idea (nothing is excluded).

Quote:

Compared to the Earth, humans and bacteria are both insignificant. According to what you just said, the influence of either is insignificant compared to the overpowering influence of the Earth. To me, that's at odds with what you said before. How are they not?

I'm saying the Earth is the influence of the bacteria and the humans, as are the stars. Although their matter is insignificant, they are the created and influenced by the Earth and the Stars. Humans and bacteria alike are still influenced by it. They wouldn't be here without either the Sun nor the Earth, and the Sun and the Earth are what guide the further evolution of consciousness most. That is obvious and vague, but what I mean is that they are analogous to the mother and father of these biological machines and their spirit is inside of us. I did say it is mysterious.

It seems so vague because I'm describing things at a macroscopic level and relating it to things that happen at a microscopic level. For that I can only suggest that there are trends in our history, evolution, and music that I have noticed. That evidence can't just be typed into a box and posted onto a forum and make any sort of sense (as we can see).

This is just an idea. Just one that we seem to be taking seriously.

Quote:

Ok, so hang on. Does it actually add anything or doesn't it? If it does, then why is it unnecessary? If it doesn't, then why do you bring it up in the first place? Isn't it simply misleading to draw an analogy in that case?

What I meant was that the use of the comparison to the scientific theory of mass-energy equivalency is not needed to understand this idea, but I felt it lent itself nicely to it. It provides proof to me, but I feel like I know something else.

I give matter an additional property, kind of like a "Deity Particle" if you want to call it that (to avoid using the already existent God Particle ). The "Deity Particle" creates a link from the Sun to the Earth through photons, influencing the recipient "stuff" to eventually become alive and walk around through the process of evolution. Eventually the Sun is able to think for itself on it's own soil because the creature will be aware that it is the Sun, and also have an awareness of what it has control over. That is what I mean by all of this, but even that is a little vague. It's just an idea.

Quote:

Oh? What, according to you, is the premise of this discussion?

Remember the phrase 'Galactic Consciousness'? The discussion is about the galaxy becoming aware of itself. The step we're involved in right now is giving this solar system "consciousness".. but then we're kind of into a whole "But how does that work? What is the evidence?". I say the evidence is quite literally everywhere that stuff isn't just rocks and empty space.

Quote:

No, I don't think you do get the gist of what I meant. What inspires people about a starry night does not depend on what the nature of the stars is. Physics tells us stars are nuclear furnaces, tens, hundreds, thousands parsecs away or more. Whether you know this or not does not change the beauty of the night sky.

It's not that I don't agree with all of that, but I think there is a little bit more to it. We were "meant" to be attracted to them, not just because they move, but because they "have" consciousness and can influence our reality in a more meaningful way that is more profound than we give credit to. They made us attracted to them, like the flowers with the bees.

Quote:

Ooh, I love the insult. Say it again.

Hey, moderately intelligent isn't an insult! I called you prejudice as an insult.

Quote:

Ok, so you're not going to clarify any of the things I asked you to clarify because they're unclear?Well, I didn't really think you would. That just proofs the point I wanted to make though.

I am clarifying the idea, but I don't think it is my place to clarify real world things that are already clear to each of us (or should be). From what I can see I am being as clear as I can be about an unclear mysterious topic.

There are things that I cannot simply prove in a few paragraphs, like how I feel entropy applies to everything. I could write a book on that, if I were any good at writing, but the examples and metaphors are all I can give you here. The wikipedia example of an ice cube melting was what triggered the first relationship I made between entropy and "the end of the world" because it feels as though that is what is happening (I mean, we're a melting ice cube, not that the world is ending). The realizations that are made over time get steadily increasing. More of the ice cube melts, more technology and more rapid changes occurring here on earth. Eventually it gets to a point where there is no more ice left, there are no more changes to take place... but this is the universe, and the universe is infinite, so it becomes "cyclical". A new cycle is created, a new ice cube is formed, and it again begins to start melting. Slowly at first, but it'll speed up.

With metaphors and analogies you either get it or you don't. If you don't actually understand what I'm trying to say, I have no hope of trying to prove to you that it is true. There is nothing to prove because you wouldn't even know what it is that you're disagreeing with if the proof doesn't meet your standards. I haven't always been giving answers to some of your questions because I've noticed you don't understand the concept itself which makes proving it futile.

I asked if you had verifiable proof of your hypothesis. I did not ask directly about your unique idea.

I know what you did, I said I don't know why you did it. In either case, I did provide all answers to your questions. You may wish to form better questions.

Everyone has consciousness and a "soul" at birth, but not everyone retains it throughout their life. There is darkness in space, a force which wishes to absorb the photons. Those things manifest themselves here as Fox News, and they also have a massive influence... for now.

"What I meant was that the use of the comparison to the scientific theory of mass-energy equivalency is not needed to understand this idea, but I felt it lent itself nicely to it."

I'm glad you realized that...Also I hope next time you will think twice before trying to sell some scientific mumbo jumbo...Not that there's anything wrong with it, as long as you know that that's what it is. It's best to respect science in my opinion by not infiltrating it with whatever else.

Also it's harder to understand what you are trying to say when you mixing terms, for those who are actually trying to understand it not just taking your words for granted.

So why do you think that conciousness was forced upon us, and if so, who forced upon us? Perhaps ...Obama ?

Also I hope next time you will think twice before trying to sell some scientific mumbo jumbo.

At least I didn't say quantum mechanics gives us the ability to manifest objects in our reality through the power of thought! That was all the rage around this time last year (and of course still continues).

Quote:

So why do you think that conciousness was forced upon us, and if so, who forced upon us?

Written at the beginning of Mostly Harmless. The general idea I have is that time is illusory and all of this stuff "just is", always has been, and always will be. The purpose of the universe might be to create another universe, or maybe we're creating new universes with every passing moment. Who knows, but I guess it's just a book, and I haven't finished it yet.

If you really would actually like to know, what did you think about the memes Dan was talking about? I bet you didn't even watch the minuscule crumb of proof I told you of. Essentially he says there is an infection goin' round... and what he talks about is not something new, it is something that's always been going on.